roncachamp
Final Approach
See Order JO 7110.65V Air Traffic Control paragraphs 4−1−1. ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE LIMITATIONS and 4−1−2. EXCEPTIONS.
Last edited:
Flying at MOCA to airport without IAP
- Thread starter polaris
- Start date
See Order JO 7110.65V Air Traffic Control paragraphs 4−1−1. ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE LIMITATIONS and 4−1−2. EXCEPTIONS.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Are you sure? This snip (par 4-4-1 c.) from the link you posted seems to say otherwise:
"c. Random routes.
1. When not being radar monitored, GNSS-equipped RNAV aircraft on random RNAV routes must be cleared via or reported to be established on a point-to-point route.
(a) The points must be published NAVAIDs, waypoints, fixes or airports recallable from the aircraft’s navigation database. The points must be displayed on controller video maps or depicted on the controller chart displayed at the control position. When applying nonradar separation the maximum distance between points must not exceed 500 miles."
1. When not being radar monitored, GNSS-equipped RNAV aircraft on random RNAV routes must be cleared via or reported to be established on a point-to-point route.
(a) The points must be published NAVAIDs, waypoints, fixes or airports recallable from the aircraft’s navigation database. The points must be displayed on controller video maps or depicted on the controller chart displayed at the control position. When applying nonradar separation the maximum distance between points must not exceed 500 miles."
dtuuri
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yes.
That's random routes, not airways, and there's no mention of altitude at all. See paragraph 4-5-6.a.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ok, so you could clear the OP ESC direct 292 (if GPS equipped) even if below radar coverage and even if 292 were beyond 22 miles, but you can't clear it via an airway if that were the case?
dtuuri
roncachamp
Final Approach
No.
The OP can be cleared ESC direct 2P2 without radar or GPS because it is within the usable limits of the VOR. The minimum altitude ZMP could assign is the MIA, probably 2500 MSL in that area. The pilot could be issued a cruise clearance which would allow him to determine and descend to the minimum altitude that complied with FAR 91.177(a). Most of that route is over Green Bay, surface elevation 580' MSL per the sectional.
The OP can be cleared to 2P2 via the airway down to the MOCA, 2100 MSL, without radar or GPS because 2P2 is within 22 miles of the VOR. A lower altitude is not available because the route is one where a minimum altitude is prescribed in Part 95.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I knew that, but I'm trying to get at something else.
Again, that much I knew, but I'm asking (or attempting to ask) about a GPS filed route to a hypothetical airport beyond the 22/40 nm limits, where you say radar is required. In other words, those "limits" don't seem to apply to GPS random routes according to the paragraph I cited from 7110.65.
dtuuri
Maybe Steve doesn't have any points on his video maps or controller charts.
This text is new to V. See the big BLACK BAR down the side. They've reformatted this section a bit, but I believe the previous version only permitted to omission of radar monitoring in the Anchorage Center airspace.
This text is new to V. See the big BLACK BAR down the side. They've reformatted this section a bit, but I believe the previous version only permitted to omission of radar monitoring in the Anchorage Center airspace.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
FAA Order 7110.65 specifically requires radar monitoring for flight below the published MEA on an airway. And to accept a clearance to a fix, you must have sufficient equipment to be able to determine lateral deviation off course as well as arrival at that fix. With only a VOR, you cannot determine arrival over 2P2.
B350ATP
Pre-takeoff checklist
do you mean one (1) VOR without DME ? Is that what you are talking about
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You cannot legally use a DME cut or VOR radial to identify a point not defined by that DME cut or VOR radial. One could legally obtain a clearance direct to ESC161021 (ESC 161 radial/21 DME fix), but a) that's not the same as being cleared direct 2P2, and b) you'd need a DME receiver which the OP doesn't have. With only VOR, you could obtain a clearance from ESC via the ESC 161 radial to the intersection of that radial with the MNM 068 radial (assuming there are no published or NOTAM restrictions on that radial), but again, that is not the same as being cleared direct to 2P2. This may seem like semantics, but it is the rule.
B350ATP
Pre-takeoff checklist
Cherokee 123, descend and maintain 1500 (or whatever is MVA) at this time, proceed present position direct (or whatever) ESC 161 at 21 DME, if 2P2 not in sight upon reaching ESC 161 21 DME fix, make left turn and fly heading 090 and climb and maintain 3000 (or similar exit plan). Remain on my frequency until instructed otherwise.
(or similar instructions)
I don't see how the above would not work to get him into 2P2, which is the goal.
Also, OP posted twice to this thread up this this point. At no point did he mention what VOR/DME/etc equipment he had or did not have. Where did you get he does not have DME? Did you just assume that ? Maybe I missed something, but I am reading the same thread you are, yes ? No ?
The original post discussed his desire for a solution to fix his problem (getting into 2P2). We are addressing that. Lets keep it on task and not get into the weeds with NOTAMS on radials and other stuff. Why don't we just tell OP
Great question Mr. OP. However you are assuming no runway closures at your departure point exist, your fuel sump shows no water, no NOTAMS or TFR's exist enroute, and that no Chief Counsel opinions are released regarding NAVAID usage the morning of your flight. Mr OP you should not try to make this easy, instead make this extremely hard, to the point that pilots get diagnosed with OCD and try to manage every single detail of every single thing. Flying should be hard, and difficult. How dare you depart on the airway, request to descend and try to get the airport in sight. This should be hard.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that IFR clearances almost always end with direct to the airport, but what people almost always fly for the last leg of the flight is an instrument approach or a visual approach. You don't have to fly to the exact location of an airport to start either type of approach.
However if the pilot is concerned about the possibility that the FAA might deem it illegal to file to an airport that the pilot is planning to find via VOR radials and/or DME distance that he determined himself, why not just file that radial crossing and/or DME distance as the final fix before the airport?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I agree,provided the aircraft has either DME or IFR GPS, and suggested much the same above. Note that with the elevations in that area (starting with the lake surface at 580 MSL), 1500 MSL is going to be too low to be legal, but I'm sure the controller can sort that out.
That was the impression I had. If I was wrong, then a clearance such as you suggested would be legal.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Yes, you do. You either have to have the field in sight for the visual or an approved procedure to get there (the IAP) to be cleared for one of those options.
Why not, indeed? And I so suggested above.
roncachamp
Final Approach
You're asking about what you referred to in part in a previous message, paragraph 4-4-1.c. How do you see that having any effect on the route under discussion here?
roncachamp
Final Approach
I have no video maps or controller charts.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Wrong. Radar monitoring is required beyond 22 miles from the VOR and that distance is based on the reasonable estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft.
roncachamp
Final Approach
What rule is that?
dtuuri
Final Approach
You appeared to widen the discussion to include points beyond 22 nm of a NAVAID that are on an airway with this general statement:
But my cite seems to say radar is not a requirement for certain equipped aircraft on up to 500 nm route segments. Just trying to verify that I understand that correctly, not trying to play "gotcha". Also, it was new language, maybe you hadn't seen it?
dtuuri
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
91.205(d)(2), which the FAA says means this even if Steven personally disagrees.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That was in response to Levy's statement:
The subject was flight below the MEA, down to the MOCA. The operation in question is less than 22 miles from the VOR so radar is not required and GPS, while very nice to have, does not offer any advantage because the operation is within usable NAVAID limits.
I've seen it. Did you read all of it? Paragraph 4-4-1.c.1.(c) states; "Assigned altitudes must be at or above the highest MIA along the projected route segment being flown, including the protected airspace of that route segment."
IIRC the MIA in that area is 2500. The OP can get down to 2100 on the airway and down to 1600 on a cruise clearance. The new language of paragraph 4-4-1.c.1.(c) does not help him.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Where does the FAA say that? The FAA says, in FAR 91.177, that the reasonable estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft is sufficient.
B350ATP
Pre-takeoff checklist
again, you are of the thinking that OP does not have the navigation equipment suitable for route flown. OP never told us what he had, nor was that his question. OP could have Proline 21 with LPV for all we know. He asked about MOCA and getting into 2P2.
This making stuff more than what it is, and getting off track into the weeds, is not benefiting anyone.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'm trying to see if it helps others by not needing to rely on radar if they happen to be going somewhere beyond 22 nm on an airway or beyond 40 nm of a low altitude VOR. It looks to me like, with the specified RNAV equipment, they can.
Of course, if I was the OP I wouldn't spend my money on a sectional chart and waste my time trying to see what my minimum instrument altitude would be for an off-airway flight like this. I'd simply file ESC V271 WINEP and not request any altitude lower than my power-off gliding distance from land. If I can't see the island from there, I'll go somewhere else to party. (EDIT: In a twin, I'd go the cruise clearance route.
)dtuuri
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I thought made it clear I was speaking about a VOR-only airplane regarding a clearance direct 2P2 being prohibited by 91.205(d)(2). I also said it was legal if the OP had some sort of RNAV (VOR/DME or GPS). And 91.177 isn't relevant to that question or its answer -- it doesn't matter what altitude you're at.
roncachamp
Final Approach
It doesn't matter what you say, it's what you can support with verifiable documentation that matters. Your record is pretty poor.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm still not clear on why you're saying it's not legal to locate the airport via two cross radials, or via a radial and DME. Why do you believe that doesn't meet the requirements of 91.205(d)(2)?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
There's no such thing as exact in the physical world.
I agree, but you don't have to get exactly over the airport to get the field in sight.
azure
Final Approach
Yes, I was referring to you, but now I'm actually not sure of the context. In any case, if I understand correctly, you're talking about radar monitoring of aircraft navigating with the use of ground-based NAVAIDs. I was talking about random routes, including RNAV routes not based on NAVAIDs. I seem to recall you saying that radar monitoring is required on such routes as well. JO7110.65U, Section 5-5-1 said that radar separation is required on such routes, with an exception for GPS-equipped aircraft on random routes in Anchorage Center airspace, and obviously radar separation is impossible outside of a radar environment. But from your later post, it seems 7110.65U is superseded by 7110.65V, and section 5-5-1 now reads somewhat differently. Now the exception applies to GNSS-equipped aircraft NOT on a random impromptu route. I'm not sure what "impromptu" means here (it was in parentheses in the previous version of the order, making me think it's just descriptive) but if the meaning is the same as a random route, then it seems that radar separation is still required for /G aircraft on random routes.
azure
Final Approach
No I don't. As I said, I'm just not sure it's legal. Until John's post earlier in the thread of a route clearance to a private field, I'd never heard of that being done when there was no official data published.
It's not the clearance along a radial to a fix defined by radial+distance that I was questioning, but the ability to identify the clearance limit if it's given in the form of the identifier of an airport for which official data has not been published.
azure
Final Approach
At the risk of complete threadjack, I'll add that just today I flew from 57D to 6B0 via BUF V2 SYR KRAZZ, cleared altitude 9,000. Soon after I left the airway at SYR, Syracuse Approach came on and told me that Boston Center had some equipment outages preventing them from seeing me at 9,000 and insisted that I either climb to 11,000 or they'd have to put me back on an airway route. I took it that radar monitoring would not have been required on the airway, but was required if I wanted to fly the random route SYR KRAZZ 6B0. Is this incorrect?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sectional charts and enroute charts are official data, and they have distance scales and VOR compass roses printed on them.
azure
Final Approach
Of course. But say you're flying a VOR (not VOR/DME) approach for which the MAP is the runway threshold, defined via timing from an off-field VOR. Is it legal to determine the MAP by measuring the distance from the VOR using a plotter on a sectional or enroute chart and identify it in flight using DME? I don't have a reference but I'm pretty sure I was taught that this isn't legal. And if it isn't on an approach, why should it be legal in a route clearance?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I didn't say that. What's not legal is to accept a clearance direct to the airport without equipment that can provide cross-track and fix passage information, i.e., approved RNAV gear. Nothing wrong with getting a clearance via a radial to a radial-radial fix (or with VOR and DME to a radial/DME fix). You just have to make the clearance match the equipment you have.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Except those compass roses are not official distances for IFR navigation.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
No. 91.175 requires that you perform the approach according to the published approach procedure. If they don't put a DME fix at the MAP (that distance inside the D), you cannot legally use DME to determine arrival at the MAP. The big issue is that everything on the IAP chart is surveyed and flight checked for accuracy, so if you make up your own DME fix by measuring with a plotter, you have no way of knowing a) that the measurement is sufficiently accurate, or b) that the DME signal is reliable and sufficiently accurate at that location and altitude.
That's not saying you can't use DME for "situational awareness" the same way you'd have your GPS running on an NDB approach without GPS overlay, but you'd better have the timer running on that VOR approach on your checkride just like you need that ADF tuned up and the needle pointing in the right place on an NDB approach regardless of what you have in the GPS.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Paragraph 4-4-1 c.
"NOTE−
A random impromptu routing is a direct course initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot during flight."
A random impromptu routing is a direct course initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot during flight."
dtuuri
azure
Final Approach
Yeah, I did run across that later. So a filed random route is exempt from the requirement for radar separation in 5-5-1?
azure
Final Approach
Yes, that's what I understood. So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME? (regardless of altitude) If so, how is that different from the VOR approach example? Where do you obtain sufficiently accurate data to identify arrival at 2P2?